State v. Gutierrez

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. EDGAR GUTIERREZ, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 20-0150

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE

October 22, 2020

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yuma County

No. S1400CR201900534

The Honorable Roger A. Nelson, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General's Office, Phoenix

By Michael O'Toole

Counsel for Appellee

Yuma County Legal Defender's Office, Yuma

By Kristin McManus

Counsel for Appellant

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge Maurice Portley¹ joined.

WINTHROP, Judge:

¶1 Edgar Gutierrez ("Gutierrez") was convicted of misdemeanor endangerment. He appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal, arguing there was insufficient evidence of the existence of a victim and of a culpable mental state to support the verdict. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 In May 2019, Yuma Police Officer Cerecedo observed a burgundy-colored Honda Civic sedan he suspected was speeding and began following the car to confirm its speed. While following the car, Officer Cerecedo also observed the driver of the vehicle fail to make a complete stop at a stop sign.

¶3 Officer Cerecedo followed the car—still traveling at a high rate of speed—into a residential neighborhood and attempted to initiate a traffic stop. As the Honda was pulling into a residential driveway, Officer Cerecedo activated his emergency lights and positioned the patrol car approximately ten feet behind the Honda. As Officer Cerecedo was exiting his patrol vehicle to approach, the car rapidly accelerated in reverse and collided with the front of the patrol car, pushing it backward approximately one foot and damaging both vehicles.

¶4 Shortly after the collision, two individuals, an adult male driver and a female passenger, partially exited the car with their hands raised. The passenger appeared to be in pain and shortly after exiting the vehicle was clutching her abdomen and lower back. Officer Cerecedo instructed the passenger to step away from the vehicle and await further instruction. Once additional officers arrived on scene, they approached thecar and confirmed there were no other passengers inside. The male driver was handcuffed, placed into the backseat of a patrol vehicle, and identified as Edgar Gutierrez.

¶5 Sometime later, medical personnel arrived on scene and evaluated the passenger, following which both Gutierrez and the passenger were transported to Yuma Regional Medical Center for any needed medical attention.

¶6 A grand jury subsequently indicted Gutierrez on two counts of aggravated assault (Count 1 and Count 2), one count of criminal damage (Count 3), and one count of misdemeanor endangerment (Count 4). Following a jury trial, Gutierrez was found not guilty of Counts 1, 2, and 3, but was found guilty of Count 4 and was sentenced to twenty-four months of unsupervised probation.

¶7 Gutierrez filed a timely appeal and we have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") sections 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).

ANALYSIS

¶8 Gutierrez argues the superior court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of endangerment pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-1201(A).

¶9 We review de novo the sufficiency of the evidence to determine whether the record contains substantial evidence to warrant a conviction, as well as the denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal on that basis. State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559, 562, ¶ 15 (2011). The relevant question on review is whether "any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Mathers, 165 Ariz. 64, 66 (1990) (emphasis in original). We review the evidence "in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction." State v. Lee, 189 Ariz. 608, 615 (1997).

I. Existence of an Identifiable Victim

¶10 First, Gutierrez argues the State failed to provide evidence of an identifiable victim of the alleged conduct. Gutierrez contends that, because the endangerment allegation in the indictment identified "J.R." asthe victim, there needed to be clear and convincing evidence showing the identity of the alleged victim was, in fact, J.R.

¶11 Misdemeanor endangerment requires proof that the defendant's conduct placed "another person" at risk of physical injury. A.R.S. § 13-1201(A). Based on the plain language of the statute, a victim is a necessary element of endangerment, but the victim's name or exact identity is not required. State v. Villegas-Rojas, 231 Ariz. 445, 447, ¶ 8 (App. 2012) (holding that, while the statute requires another person be placed at risk, the name or exact identity of the victim is not a required element); State v. Tschilar, 200 Ariz. 427, 435, ¶ 34 (App. 2001) (stating that a victim is a necessary element where the statute required the prohibited conduct be committed against "another person"). The existence of a victim can be supported by substantial evidence that is direct or circumstantial. West, 226 Ariz. at 562, ¶ 16.

¶12 Here, the record includes substantial evidence for a rational trier of fact to find that there was another person—the passenger—who was at risk of physical injury. A witness standing "five or ten feet" from the incident testified to seeing a female passenger immediately exit the vehicle following the collision. Police officer video footage admitted at trial also showed a female clutching her abdomen and lower back in seeming pain after exiting the front passenger side of Gutierrez's car. Photos admitted into evidence show the same female passenger sitting at the scene of the incident and then later show her in a hospital bed² with fetal monitors attached to her abdomen. The arresting officer observed the female passenger may have been pregnant and affirmed he was aware "that [J.R.] and Mr. Gutierrez were transported to be cleared medically at the Yuma Regional Medical Center."

¶13 In this case, the record reflects there was a female passenger in Gutierrez's car prior to and at the time of the collision. Although the victim was not explicitly identified by the State at trial by her first and last name,³ a rational trier of fact could reasonably infer from the testimony andother evidence presented that the female passenger shown in photo and video evidence, and referenced in applicable testimony by her last name, was the victim identified in the indictment as "J.R." Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction, we find there was sufficient evidence of a victim for the purposes of endangerment. See Lee, 189 Ariz. at 615.

II. Culpable Mental State

¶14 Second, Gutierrez argues the State failed to show he acted recklessly—in a manner that disregarded a risk that his conduct could cause physical injury.

¶15 Misdemeanor endangerment requires a showing of a reckless mental state and the creation of a risk of physical injury. See A.R.S. § 13-1201(A). For the purposes of this offense, a reckless mental state exists when the defendant is aware of and consciously disregards the risk that his or her conduct will result in physical injury. A.R.S. § 13-105(10)(c). To satisfy the elements of endangerment, the victim must be placed in actual risk of injury but need not be physically injured or aware of the actor's conduct. State v. Carreon, 210...